<p>^^Interesting story, I wonder how it would (and does) play out for young women vs. men. I think business and many other professions, mine for instance medicine, still is an old boys’ club/network, but I wonder if the same thinking around beer pong and requisite “social chair at a sorority” holds true for women candidates.</p>
<p>@Winterset:
Great post! I agree with you and Roger of Tuck School.</p>
<p>Good question about women (we were 50:50). But when you try to rank these schools your are slicing the salami pretty fine. They are ALL great schools. AND never forget every teen has different skills. Scores are an easy measure, but not always the best one. Love them, hug them, wish them well and hope they can do the same for others and the world.</p>
<p>Comment this fall from an AO at a top school:</p>
<p>“Around here we say standardized test scores are a great predictor of how a student will do (pause)… on standardized tests.”</p>
<p>Of course the average SSAT for this school is still in the high 80’s/low 90s</p>
<p>Good. At least they are a predictor of some sort. Grades, on the other hand, if a predictor at all, are a very poor one. An “A” in one school is a “B” in another and could be a “C” in yet another, and they are not reliable predictor at all of the grades one gets in boarding schools. Why do we hear AOs so often talking about standardized tests like they are <em>nothing</em>? Shouldn’t they also say “Well, grades are grades. We don’t take them too seriously. It’s just one piece of the puzzle”, etc. ?</p>
<p>In the blog below, Bronson (my favorite research-toting myth buster) says there’s a stronger correlation between SAT’s and grades in college than most people think. </p>
<p>[In</a> Defense of the SAT - Newsweek](<a href=“http://www.newsweek.com/blogs/nurture-shock/2009/09/18/in-defense-of-the-sat.html]In”>In Defense of the SAT)</p>
<p>I found it puzzling this summer that Exeter’s math department determined math placement (outside of testing) based on grades and SSAT percentage scores. Given how skewed those scores are (discussed ad nauseum on CC), I was puzzled by that. It was the right placement for my kid though.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>OK then. So there is. And? (If Mary practices more for the SAT, will she get higher grades in college? If Paul is really lousy on the SAT, should he become a rapper? What is the point here? That someone with a 500 SAT will do worse in college courses than someone with an 750 SAT?)</p>
<p>Ceteris paribus, perhaps if we had two clones who differed only in their SAT scores, I would be interested in comparisons. But for now, I will stay with Winterset’s anecdotal evidence above (which corresponds to my personal observations) and continue to disbelieve that scores or grades alone would tell much about an individual’s future success (and happiness) in life. Just ask Terman’s gifted cohort.</p>
<p>By the way, my *original *original posting was about the futility of rankings schools, since I believe that once we pass a certain threshold (for the school tier), human factors and subjective criteria (in the choice of school) become paramount (which also brings out who we are). </p>
<p>If a student feels she could get into a good number of schools, then she is actually admitted by several of them, but in 1 lifetime can go to exactly one school, how should she choose? That choice should have (by my thinking) nothing to do with the general 5-year trend of Ivy matriculation being 1.782% higher at one school than at another and everything to do with each school’s community, spirit, atmosphere, values, and outlook.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>How do we measure and rank these variables so that we can make the right choice of school? 
</p>
<p>^^& pulsar, if you make the wrong choice, will they hear your piteous cries of regret?</p>
<p>^^ Do you have anything meaningful to say with respect to the thread title?</p>
<p>(I can never remember how to do the quote thing) p345 said:</p>
<p>“What is the point here? That someone with a 500 SAT will do worse in college courses than someone with an 750 SAT?”</p>
<p>Yeah, that is exactly the point of the article. What I like about Po Bronson is that he’s so clear-headed about what good, reliable studies really show us–things that often feel uncomfortable or contradict our common sense or anecdotal evidence. </p>
<p>That said, he’s only talking about the correlation between SAT’s and grades in the first year of college; Winterset was taking a longer (and highly entertaining!) view of success in life. I’m not disputing Winterset’s point, just pointing out that standardized tests do appear to have some value in assessing a student’s future success in school. </p>
<p>Like most conversations, this one meandered away from the original topic, but in an interesting direction. I’m totally with you about the futility of ranking these schools, however.</p>
<p>
I agree. To argue a school is #4 or #7 is idiotic. That said, wha I sometimes see on this forum and elsewhere are two extremes. At one end, some people are so caught up with the rankings that they let some ranking be the only guide to their actions of choosing a school, or take pains to prove their choice of school is the real #1. At the other end, some people claim that pretty much in the whole boarding school world all that matters is “fit” and that there’s no difference in quality of education coming with different schools. What’s wrong with the former approach is obvious. And the problem with the latter, IMO, is that it’s against common sense. If school choice is all about fit, then we shouldn’t distinguish any school from the rest in terms of its quality because let’s face it - there are students in the poor schools in bad neighborhoods who do well, but is that because it’s a good fit or is it because it’s their only choice that they made the best out of?</p>
<p>
Of course, but what if that difference is 17.82% or 27.82%? That’s where I think it matters. Numbers are rarely just numbers. There are often stories behind them.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If my child plays neither squash nor football, the Ivy matriculation of a school’s squash team and football team has no influence on his chances. Nor would the outcomes for various other candidates with “hooks” necessarily have any influence on the chances of the average student. In some ways, it may even depress them, if the spots to the Ivies tend to go to students with hooks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The leading prep schools have amazing resources available for the motivated student. No school can transform an unmotivated student into a scholar. If you are a true student, and want to take advantage of the offerings, then you should best look at the course catalog, speak with the teachers, and try to decide which school is best for you. If you’re interested in Marine Biology, for example, a school which offers courses in Marine Biology should be higher on your list than a school which doesn’t–even if the second school has a better Ivy admit rate.</p>
<p>If you’re gung-ho about a certain academic discipline, it may be that a school which others don’t know well has an amazing teacher in that discipline. The “higher-ranked” school may not have thrilling teachers in that particular field. That happens in colleges, too. If you want to become the curator of an art museum, for example, you should head to Williams, not the Ivies.</p>
<p>Non sequitur: For those near Williams, the Clark museum is a real gem. I went there for the first time this winter and intend to return.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I do feel that the process might be more effective if during the school search dozens (or more) variables were gathered and students (and their parents) could narrow down choices based on such filters (not “rankings”). They are all good schools, so what else do they have (or what makes them “good”)?</p>
<p>That way we would not have to start new threads every month about which school has the best swimming program, the most trees, the coldest March, or the swellest boat. In other words, such factors would not “rank” schools as much as provide extra detail and add texture to each picture, so even before starting applications students could sift through a great variety of outstanding schools and get “fitted” for the right(er) ones.</p>
<p>For instance, “acreage” is great, but how about students/acres (like endowment per student)? How about major “facilities” (science, gym, arts, library, team sports etc.) - latest renovation, new build, development, improvement? And the length of trails, streams, and the number of ponds and squirrels?</p>
<p>These might all tell a story, and woven together present each school in a different light. *Then *you visit a select group of school, because in the end, personal impressions and gut feelings will lead to most of the final choices. But getting an early head start (not basing visit choices on mere name recognition) from the comfort of your computer screen could be quite helpful.</p>
<p>Winterset’s somewhat amorphous and USNewsForbesEtc’s narrowly number-driven approaches could be melded into something more revealing and together very meaningful.</p>
<p>Sevendad, the Clark is fantastic. I’ve been fortunate to have spent quite some time there, viewing in private their splendid Dürer collection, when a family member was curating there a few summers ago. A hidden gem of an art institute, highly recommended.</p>
<p>p43531, what’s you’re suggesting is largely what consultants DO. Given the potential investment, their fees (3-5%) certainly seem like a worthwhile investment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Consultants? Another layer that sounds like fund-of-funds in alternative investments (while fund managers get paid because they make money, others get paid selling names of those with the Midas touch). Will not cut it for me.</p>
<p>I like to go to the source, and no consultant seems to do as close a reading for my child as I can. Certainly though, this is only my own, personal opinion, and you make a good point.</p>
<p>There should be a greater emphasis on the emotional and psychological health of a boarding school community when ranking for your child. We’ve had arguments on this site before about the meaning of yield and attrition. It’s my opinion that where the top 20 schools are concerned, these measurements are worthy data points beyond visits and word of mouth. </p>
<p>With caveats of course, if a school has a very high yield (the percentage of admitted kids who choose to matriculate and a very low attrition rate (the percentage of kids lost each year for one reason or another), it seems to me that it’s a school that knows itself well, that admits well, that also manages well the challenges of early independence in a competitive environment. </p>
<p>Among the top 20 schools where material differences become smaller around college outcomes, peer quality, scores etc, the psychological and emotional health of the school community become worthy differentiators. This March, as parents and kids consider their options, look at yield and attrition data before pulling the trigger.</p>
<p>“no consultant seems to do as close a reading for my child as I can.”</p>
<p>But they can probably do a better objective reading OF your child than you can. You appear to have principles at odds. You want the best information available, but you’re not willing to look at legal insider intelligence. Many consultants are former AOs and teachers…one firm is headed by a former PA cluster dean. It’s a pittance to pay up front if the result is what you say you are seeking–the best possible position for your particular child. Just MHO.</p>
<p>@ThacherParent, where is attrition data available? I would assume schools would try to bury this figure as best they could…</p>